Topic: Volatility, ain't seen nothing yet, 10K to 1M in 1 year??? - page 3. (Read 9612 times)

S-curve adoption does not imply instant 100% market penetration. Your 3 million$ coin scenario is only an hyperbole to support your stance

I know it will take (A LOT OF) time !  I was just illustrating the logical consequences of any theoretical model that postulates:

- S-curve technology adoption in the "near" future
- good drives out bad (meaning: finite market share is not possible, it has to be 100%)

as has been put forward a few times to say 'with certainty' that bitcoin will "go to the moon" soon (in a few years).

Then you get plots of technology adoption of internet, mobile phones, TV and so on to illustrate the S-type adoption.

The only point is: if it is now clear that S-curve adoption in the near future to 100% is not a very viable model, and if it is, that it would be catastrophic given the still very high mining rewards, then what IS a viable model ?

Because how does something like a speculative asset do for, say, more than 20 years without "breakthrough" ?  How does confidence and trust behave if after 20 years, it is still a small thing ?

I'm trying to explore critically what are the possibilities of bitcoin.  I just showed the peculiarities of the model "to the moon soon", which make it hard to believe.  

Could it go stepwise ?  Every few years, a new conquest of a small niche market ?  To keep it slowly growing ?  To keep the flame burning ?  It started out in the black market.  It is taking on a few "geek" niches.
However, how long can this slow stepwise conquest without "the big S-curve hit" last ?

You used to have reasonable, well-informed friends.

In the mean time, people need to learn and understand that old money is bad and that new money is Bitcoin. I met an old friend recently, working in IT, he heard about Bitcoin, but didn't think it was money. He also had no idea what was wrong with the current system. So this will go on for awhile.

S-curve adoption, good money (bitcoin) drives bad (fiat) out of the market, and the total market cap of fiat in the world today (55 trillion or so).  This means that if bitcoin takes over all M2 fiat in the world (it will be driven out, and adoption will be fast, according to S-curve theory, and good/bad money theory), with similar velocity, that it will have a similar market cap.

If we have a market cap of, say 17-18 million coins, and it has to have the value of 55 trillion which is the M2 cap today, then we arrive at $ 3 million for a coin.

It is "bitcoin full moon".

Hypothetical, but the basis for the reasoning.

With S-curve adoption hypothesis and good drives out bad, there is no other option but "full market cap".

So your option is: "S curve adoption will occur far in the future".  Then the question is: what happens in the mean time with bitcoin ? 

True. That's why I call PoW - Proof of World


It's correct, only I don't see where you get 3600 coins at $3 million each.
Market cap simply cannot grow that fast, if you see that, it's a bubble and it will burst.

By the time the market cap is substantial the reward would mostly consist of transaction fees.

Lol @ trotting out ur tax hobby horse when you got nothing.  GG, bro!

And you can get the taxpayer to fund them, because they have a NIMBY attitude towards power plants.

That doesn't matter.  If you have miners 10 times as energy efficient, you can afford to put 10 times more miners !
What matters is the COST of electricity.  As long as the cost of electricity is way below the mining reward (which is about $10 billion a day if we are in full bitcoin economy), it is profitable to put more mining equipment, consuming more power.



Absolutely.
Now, there is something to say for that: deserts could be paved full of photo-electric cells with integrated mining equipment.  We could put the Sahara full of mining stuff.  However, I think a good old coal power plant will win cost-wise.  Remember that this must be up and running 2 years from now :-)



Nope, mining will adjust so as to have electricity cost to be, say, one third or so of the mined value.  (one third profit, one third hardware, and one third electricity, just guessing).


It is true that the reward-halving will leave us with a lot of newly constructed, unused power plants :-)
Like we will have mountains of obsolete mining equipment.

Because the other market that would be seriously distorted, is the electronics industry.  A huge part of it would be converted in making mining equipment.

Half of that will die at every reward halving.

The needs of others are usually not a consideration when making money.  You are right, though: the price of electricity would sky-rocket when fighting for the last few available GW, as the demand for the current would be in competition with "making money".  As such, there will be a market equilibrium between those rich people who can still afford high electricity prices to produce food and stuff, and miners.

In other words, electricity will become hugely scarce, and the marginal price of electricity will be given by the trade-off between the desire to eat, and the desire to mine coins.


Price is not influenced by mining.  But mining is of course influenced by price: you will put into mining the amount of value minus a profit margin, equal to the mined coins.

If mining 3600 coins at $3 million each per day, mining will be rewarded $10 billion.  Any investment with a cost seriously less than $10 billion A DAY will be profitable.  I estimated that half of the mining cost goes to electricity, the other half goes to new hardware.

So you can easily spend 4 billion $ A DAY on electricity, 4 billion $ A DAY on new hardware, and still put 2 billion $ in your pocket.
A 20% ROI.  Who does better ?

Wouldn't you invest like crazy to get part of those $10 billion a day ?

^

The cool thing about building power lines vs. building ASICs is power lines don't become obsolete in 5 months

Yah there's increasing use of aluminum and even carbon fibre cores, take that as shorthand for "materials cost."

Actual installed cost per mile is in the neighborhood of a third of a million a mile, single conductor, at that rate it's cheaper to develop bleeding edge asics from scratch rather than build 50 miles of lines.

>thinks high-tension power line cables are copper

Did you learn that from Zerohedge or from Cato Institute?

We know how to do it, that does not necessarily make it "easy" or cheap for long distances. Just the copper is gonna costs 10s of thousands per mile.

FTFY  Thanks for explaining how everything in the world works.

Flashman, electricity is quite easy to transport--see high-tension power lines.  A megafarm which sets up next to a hydro plant & uses up all of its energy is anything but "green."
To make up for that wasted energy, coal-burning plants will simply have to burn more coal.
Think more than one step ahead.

Bitcoin is a system where competition for control is ensured and never stops.
You can't lose your freedom if you don't already have it.

Not the same thing, we can bring the bitcoin mines to the energy, whereas energy has to be brought to the vehicles. It's already happening, renewable is cheaper, mines are moving near hydro plants in Washington state, geothermal in Iceland, etc. Fossil fuels are only in competition elsewhere because they are more portable, portability is a non issue in bitcoin mining.

In fact, the biggest portability issue with the largest known source of energy is how difficult it is to get power or things made from power from earth orbit. The sun always shines up there, there's no atmospheric attenuation. It's the most efficient place to gather solar energy.

You win, I finally see the untenability of my position.
Bitcoin--a system where your money could vanish because nefarious miner cabal.  Much freedom, such better than fiat.

Enjoy the gifs.

Lol, I once took my V8-powered Bugeye Sprite shopping at Stop & Shop, to prove to my GF that it was a practical car.  It had no passenger seat, so shit worked out real well.  She remained unconvinced.

*I pointed out that Flashman's argument was absurd, not that fun was wrong.